Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    February 28, 2011 3:30pm-4:00pm PST

3:30 pm
for the purposes of the study, i don't have any preference there. palo alto operates its own the land fill.
3:31 pm
3:32 pm
>> they would provide a potential that are being charged by each of the jurisdictions if applicable. supervisor campos: commissioner avalos. commissioner avalos: a couple comments and questions. it makes sense that we look at jurisdictions that do not give the land fill in the county or the region. that would give us kind of an apples to apples comparison. it is also good to be able to look at there could be a matter
3:33 pm
that could be provided about the use of margin. i am not sure that is something how that is being done anywhere with refuse. i think it will be a useful thing to look at. the scope seems to be a bit narrow. it is outside of what is currently being done, but there are some opportunities that could have a good impact on city infrastructure. there are opportunities that we might see, a lot of barging
3:34 pm
being done. those will go away. perhaps this way we could make use of the barge for the next hey phase possibly close to a land fill site. what we had before us is that they will contract with trucks to go across the bay bridge to a site in the oakland and have the rail. is there a way to do that? the other question, if that is something that can be included in the scope of the work, what is the impact to the public infrastructure? we know that the port is struggling to build infrastructure.
3:35 pm
it will be to where it will be hauled out or wherever. there is a way to -- especially at the site where the distribution center will be at hunters point. i wonder if that makes sense. >> i think it is the will of the commission. we can add those potential to be reviewed. noting that the time frame is short, it could be all right.
3:36 pm
i am not so sure about the issue being done now. there may not be issues that you want to explore that might take longer than three weeks. what we would get back is a fairly cursory were -- look at that issue. we could get some information about if anyone has ever tried it, is if the revenue source, that kind of thing? >> it might be good to look at the airport staff as well. i expect it could be cursory. without having to start from scratch, understanding something much deeper and much more brought on that issue.
3:37 pm
supervisor mirkarimi: this is probably a fitting time to update the conversation. since we put the contract on hold, my office has been conducting meetings. we instigate a supplemental program for an alternative barge program. is this something that we can do alternative to what is before us? or something to complement the existing need and structure. that determination is underway right now. we are meeting with the office of economic work force development because what we learned was that the city never
3:38 pm
entertained the idea of animating the ports for this portion of waste hauling delivery. long story short, the port is not equipped to deal with solid waste. in the short term, the ability to have an infrastructure in line to be able to receive and transport recyclables, that is something that we should pursue vigorously. it helps us answering the question, but it gives us a double bond to answer how we can activate port. i am hoping that oewd does
3:39 pm
pursue another extension. whether that is in addition to or in lieu of what ever the calculus is. there is also a contract that the port is pursuing brisbane . maybe 75 acres of area that the city missed the boat on not pursuing that contract as well. if there is some rule for this question, i could see it to being cursory because of the time line. i wanted to add to the conversation that the port is not an afterthought. but definitely not out the front
3:40 pm
burner of being able to galvanize new business. it is pre-disposed for new business. i am hoping that we will be able to report something that will definitively, on the progress of the question of the port before we turn back to the contract as a whole. i will determine if that is -- which will determine if it is something that will bolster the ecology. it has to be answered. >> we can certainly put in the rfp the issues that have been raised in terms of looking at that issue and potentially working with support staff -- port staff to talk about their
3:41 pm
ability to provide a service. we can certainly have them work with port staff in making sure we have that input. supervisor mirkarimi: i think what the city missed has nothing to do with lafco. that conversation did not take place at the mayor's office. who knows? it can still continue to keep along the construct. there is enough to go around for us bringing the port into the discussion, whereas that was never mentioned before. solid waste versus
3:42 pm
>> and that's what needs to be zeroed on the port's ability to be able to help administer and process this with the proper environmental reviews. so maybe look at the issue of rekentucky cla believes -- recyclaables by something being hauled by port or barge is something we're looking at. >> i think it's important to include the barging piece in terms of the survey locally in terms of what is happening around the bay area. i would also hope that to the extent that that is not happening in the bay area that we actually look at, at least survey quickly what jurisdictions are doing that, for instance. i have heard that new york city is actually using barging and so i think that knowing who
3:43 pm
else is doing it, even if it's outside the bay area. i think it would be something useful to this discussion and at least giving a cursory overview of what that looks like, understanding that the issue of barging is very complicated. this survey will serve as a starting point for further exploration. so i would say ask in the survey to include barging around the bay area, but also to do a quick review of what jurisdictions are actually doing, the actual barging of waste, recycling and what that looks like. >> ok, and i'll exclude those that barge to the ocean. so they go there and dump. we're looking at barging to
3:44 pm
landfill. chairperson campos: i think that's a safe exclusion. vice-chair mirkarimi: yes. >> so the consultant search, i'll be looking to the league of california's city last. calapco has a list. i want to work with harvey rose's office to see if they have any suggestions to send in addition to just our normal r.s.p. process. chairperson campos: and if anyone in the city family or anyone watching has suggestions about who might be in a position to compete for this study, i think they're free to provide that information to staff and we want as much competition for purposes of conducting this survey as possible along the lines of what we're trying to accomplish with the larger larger issues h.
3:45 pm
3:46 pm
3:47 pm
3:48 pm
3:49 pm
3:50 pm
>> as i mentioned to you last time i spoke to you, i am the vice mayor of saratoga. i have also served as a vice chair. as a company that does hauling, it is a chagrined that i say it is a good thing to go about. as i look to my peers around the country, citizens and cities are taking a hard look, especially those with long-term contracts.
3:51 pm
we want to make sure that we have, it is getting it done and moving it along. we really need to open this up. this brings additional services. we are getting additional services. competitiveness usually brings prices down. so i commend you for going forward. there are two different analysises. another is to look at all of the options available to you. what is listed in the staff report is phenomenal, and it will give you some really, really good input. commissioner mar: thank you.
3:52 pm
next speaker, please. >> we partner with the port to provide rail services. i want to address one thing that commissioner mirkarimi mentioned about just recycling, that we may be able to focus on just recycling and not consolidating the recycling facility at the port. and it sounded like we were under some time constraints, and unlike the america's cup, where a gun was being held to our head to make a decision, there is a least five years left on this disposal agreement, and i heard at the budget and finance meeting that the current acceptor of our waste said they would do it indefinitely until they can do it right. i hope we are not doing some self-imposed thing. there was something approved
3:53 pm
several years ago that it anticipated industrial development at this exact site, and it took into consideration the truck trips, many of which are going to the recycling center right now, so i believe the executive director moyer would like to see this, and i hope we can doc that, rather than just roll with the existing situation. three parting words. competition, competition, competition. it gives lower rates, and it breeds integrity. this is something that has been lacking in the city in the procurement of garbage services, and just one last suggestion i have for the acting director who is pursuing this, you mentioned three services, collection,
3:54 pm
hauling, and disposal, and thee are three others that i think you need to deal with, as pertains to recology. one is currently owned privately and could be publicly owned for the benefit of the city. there is also materials processing, which means the processing of the materials that it collected at the curb. that needs to be upset, and finally, there is the transport that is different from hauling. at least as i anticipated, hauling to the transfer station. [bell] going from is important, too. commissioner: thank you. next speaker. >> i represent a legal defense
3:55 pm
fund. i testified at your budget hearing and gave testimony to each of the supervisors' offices. i would like to preface this that during the jimmy carter administration, the association of bay area governments was given a grant for regional management plans. they threw in a water supply and solid-waste along with air quality and water quality, and the chair of the general assembly of that task force was a supervisor from san francisco who went on to other things, dianne feinstein.
3:56 pm
i would like to think about intergovernmental cooperation. several more mentions korea -- were mentions. -- mentioned. i think several are very well positioned and very nearby to actually increase the amount of diversion by intergovernmental county cooperation. on the back of it, there is the position, which is opposition to the use of the facility outside of the bay area. we are for sustainability, and that means within the bay area. there is such abundant landfill capacity, particularly in santa clara county and alan lee county -- alameda county.
3:57 pm
it could be barged to. but we urge you to take another look at the procurement process that you have right now, which is considering only about two of the seven or eight disposal options. i just 1 mid to upper stated that might be something the supervisors would do well to look at -- i just wanted to state that might be something the supervisors would do well to look at. commissioner: thank you. >> commissioners, i am barbara cummings,. a resident of san francisco. to not only end up with the right fiscal solution but that we will also live up to our
3:58 pm
environmental green responsibility in terms of how we hall and where we dispose of our region where we -- how we haul and where we dispose of our waste. commissioner: thank you. is there any other member who wishes to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. ms. miller, anything to add? >> just to clarify, south bay side with management authority, that includes san mateo county. i just wanted to make sure that you know they are on the list, and i do think that the scope of services, if it was not clear, it will be clear is that it includes the necessary transfer, transport, and recyclable selection process as part of that, as part of the rfd.
3:59 pm
commissioner: thank you very much. ms. miller, in terms of process, if this item was to be voted on and approved today, what authority does it give staff in terms of the contract and the rfp? >> one of two actions. i would like, obviously, if you approve of the rfp, that we issue the rfp publicly. we would have it out for approximately two weeks, and then we could authorize me into a proposed contract, subject to ratification at the next meeting, which would be the fourth friday of march. that would allow us to a lease that would allow us to a lease start -- to at least start wit